80 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
80 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
Freud vs. Trueblood on the Question of the Cause of Man's Religious Nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freud and Trueblood have practically opposing views on the cause of
|
|
|
|
man's religious nature. The following is a short synopsis of Frued's
|
|
|
|
arguments on the three Claims of Religious Experience and the four Tests
|
|
|
|
of Veracity.
|
|
|
|
Religous experience refers to an object. Therefore, the God of many
|
|
|
|
must in itself be a physical object. Perceptually, believers of God
|
|
|
|
create in their head a vague physical object of what they would like God
|
|
|
|
to be like.
|
|
|
|
On a cognitive level, the knowledge in a religious doctrine cannot
|
|
|
|
be claimed as true because it is derive fom a human wish. In that, no
|
|
|
|
substantial evidence is given to the truth of the knowledge.
|
|
|
|
If God is not a person, His relation to you as a person is clearly a
|
|
|
|
human invention. This personifies a being that, if did exist, would not
|
|
|
|
be human and therefore not operate by human mores and customs. How can a
|
|
|
|
non-physical object relate to a person as another person would?
|
|
|
|
So millions of people say that they believe in God. But millions
|
|
|
|
believe that children are sexless (using Frued's example), and that is
|
|
|
|
merely an illusion derived from human wishes. Believing does not make a
|
|
|
|
wish true; you could wish all you want that a belief were as you saw it,
|
|
|
|
but it would not change its real meaning. Also, believing has no effect on
|
|
|
|
making a clear judgement of a matter.
|
|
|
|
But who is to say that the quality of the reporters is of a high
|
|
|
|
value? Insanity or mental illness is not always apparent or measurable.
|
|
|
|
Quality cannot be measured without some sort of scale, and a reliable
|
|
|
|
means of measuring.
|
|
|
|
The reports don't match, either. There are hundreds of different
|
|
|
|
groups of organized religion in the world, and in those distinct, different
|
|
|
|
groups, each person has his/her own perception of a God. And since none
|
|
|
|
match in exact accordance, does it not disprove the veracity of the argument?
|
|
|
|
A belief in religion does not make a noticable affect on a person, at
|
|
|
|
least none with any relevence. A cause is needed to be a valid argument.
|
|
|
|
Freud's argument is strong and completely opposes Trueblood, but it
|
|
|
|
can be seen that Freud does not take time to even consider the possibility
|
|
|
|
of a God, and looking back at St. Anselm's argument, it holds its ground
|
|
|
|
through Frued's comments on Theism. Trueblood's argument may not be a
|
|
|
|
strong one, as it is entirely empurical, but he has the right idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|